Sen. Graham Hints Constitution Outdated

Forums: Politics, Terrorism, Constitution, Bill Of Rights, Enemy Combatant
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Here's what the Chi. Tribune says about the Fascist opinions of Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

Chicago Tribune wrote:

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., proposes that if and when Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev is captured, he be held as an "enemy combatant" so he can be interrogated without the constitutional protections afforded to criminal suspects.

He's talking about an American citizen who would be arrested on American soil, not a Taliban fighter seized on a battlefield in Afghanistan. But Graham thinks our normal laws should be waived. Why? Because we might get some useful information that way.

But if getting useful information is the paramount consideration, why respect the Bill of Rights at all? Requiring police to get search warrants lets some criminals go free. Assuring defendants legal counsel prevents confessions.

More at link.

Opinions?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 11 • Views: 4,599 • Replies: 60

@Lustig Andrei,

The govt is already using a "special law" that says they dont have to read him his rights because of an "imminent threat", whatever that means.

1 Reply

Below viewing threshold (view)

@Lustig Andrei,

I can only see how Graham is more fascist than you, Merry, in degrees.

As to the Constitution being outdated. It had a few good things in it, some promising ideas, but y'all let it be so badly abused that it is now little more than a tawdry comic book.

Quote:

He's talking about an American citizen who would be arrested on American soil, not a Taliban fighter seized on a battlefield in Afghanistan. But Graham thinks our normal laws should be waived. Why? Because we might get some useful information that way.

There's that sanctimonious crap again.

Don't expect any discussion on this. It's a, excuse the pun, minefield that the A2K analysts won't touch with a ten foot pole.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

The govt is already using a "special law" that says they dont have to read him his rights because of an "imminent threat", whatever that means.

Yeah, that's a real clever end-run around 5th and 6th Amendment protections, isn't it? What it seems to boil down to is that if you want to railroad someone, all you need to do is label him/her a "terrorist" because he/she is an "imminent threat." After a while somebody who didn't pay a parking ticket gets hauled in by the local police chief who hates that person's guts on the pretext that this person is a "known terrorist." Far fetched? Not the way the current crop of neocons is thinking, it'snot.

3 Replies

Below viewing threshold (view)

@Lustig Andrei,

You don't do a very good imitation of a moral person, Merry.

0 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

How do you square this pretense with your "**** fair"?

0 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

I'm very unhappy about this attempt to avoid mirandizing Tsarnaev, for many reasons, but particularly re the face and hand of justice.
I'm (or I should say we are) not alone - the Massachusetts Public Defender is worried about this as well.

More at this link -
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57580591/public-defenders-will-represent-boston-bomb-suspect/

0 Replies

He is an American citizen with all the rights of one. If they take away his rights than they can do the same to you and me or anyone. I consider both men animals if they did what the government claims. But untill they prove it he is innocent. Its tough enough to get a fair trial when one has to fight the government money with no funds.

3 Replies

@RABEL222,

RABEL222 wrote:

He is an American citizen with all the rights of one. If they take away his rights than they can do the same to you and me or anyone. I consider both men animals if they did what the government claims. But untill they prove it he is innocent. Its tough enough to get a fair trial when one has to fight the government money with no funds.

I agree absolutely, Rabel. American citizens are supposed to have certain "inalienable rights" under the US Constitution. The abrogation of one such right for one American citizen threatens all the other rights of all of us. A person who is accused of one heinous crime does not thereby lose the protection against government capriciousness that the Constitution guarantees.

0 Replies

I am not a big fan of the ACLU, but in this case I agree with them 100%

http://www.aclu.org/organization-news-and-highlights/aclu-statement-miranda-rights-boston-bombings-suspect

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

If they did indeed try to question him. Some articles say he was uncounscious when he was arrested. Wait for the facts.

0 Replies

@RABEL222,

Quote:

I consider both men animals if they did what the government claims.

What do you think, in an academic sense, is the difference between the Tsarnaev brothers and the men, and possibly, women, who fly the US drones?

According to Sen Graham these drone fliers have killed some 4700 people.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

Quote:

I am not a big fan of the ACLU,

Of course you aren't, MM. You don't have what's necessary upstairs to sort thru the propaganda. When the constitution was being set up, those guys thought they had died and gone to heaven. Imagine their delight at being given the keys to the vault and the only guards put in place were you sheep.

0 Replies

I find it interesting that the guy who shot up the sikh temple wasn't branded a terrorist. The term seems to be bandied about when it's convenient.

2 Replies

@Ceili,

Its the American way. After all they werent christian.

2 Replies

@RABEL222,

I don't remark on every horribleness I read. It's a false presumption that I won't care.

0 Replies

I agree that every citizen should have equal protection under the law.

1 Reply

@Ceili,

Ceili wrote:

I find it interesting that the guy who shot up the sikh temple wasn't branded a terrorist. The term seems to be bandied about when it's convenient.

That's the problem -- the way they're using the word now, you're a terrorist if the powers that be say you're a terrorist. You're cool if they like you. And if you're deemed a terrorist, your rights have suddenly been forfeited.

2 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

Quote:

That's the problem -- the way they're using the word now, you're a terrorist if the powers that be say you're a terrorist. You're cool if they like you.

"the powers that be". Who might they be, Merry?

Quote:

And if you're deemed a terrorist, your rights have suddenly been forfeited.

All of a sudden you've got a bee up your ass about "rights". What made you find 'god' in such an all fired up hurry?

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

How come no one wants to answer this question?

What do you think, in an academic sense, is the difference between the Tsarnaev brothers and the men, and possibly, women, who fly the US drones?

According to Sen Graham these drone fliers have killed some 4700 people. Do you think it even remotely possible that a fifth, a tenth of the 4700 were "terrorists"?

0 Replies

Sen. Graham Hints Constitution Outdated

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know